As an ardent believer in the legalization of marijuana, as well as most other currently illegal drugs, I’d be curious to know if you find any corollaries between the current ‘War on Drugs’ (which we’re losing and will continue to waste time and money on) and prohibition? – Mark Clark

A.

The obvious parallel between Prohibition and the war on drugs is their shared futility, establishing that you just can’t legislate against human appetites. There’s also the consequent enrichment of those who would try to satisfy those appetites outside the law: the bootleggers of the 1920’s and the drug syndicates of today.

But the common aspect that suggests, to me, that our drug laws will be changing radically over the next few years is the government’s inability to derive revenue from the sale of liquor then, drugs today. No factor played a larger role in the repeal of Prohibition than the government’s desperate need for revenue as the country fell into the grip of the Depression. Before Prohibition’s advent, a substantial amount of federal revenue came from the excise tax on alcohol. As the collection of income taxes and capital gains taxes plummeted between 1930 and 1933, politicians realized that the return of liquor and beer could help shore up federal finances. In fact, in the first post-repeal year, 1934, fully nine percent of federal revenue came from the revived alcohol tax.

In today’s political climate, where no one seems to be willing to raise income-tax rates, both state and federal governments are turning increasingly to excise taxes, use taxes and other levies that could easily be applied to marijuana. Californians will be voting on such a measure — it’s actually called the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act” – this November.

Q.

Why did it require a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol but prohibitions against other drugs — marijuana, e.g. — require no special amendments? – Jim S

A.

In the era before the Constitution’s commerce clause had established itself as the lever enabling Congress to enact laws that might have appeared to infringe on state prerogatives, a Constitutional amendment was the one sure-fire way to impose national standards on the citizens of every state.

But even more than that, a Constitutional amendment was seen as an impregnable fortress. Laws were changed all the time, but no Constitutional amendment had ever been repealed: simple majorities in both houses of Congress could change or revoke a law, but a Constitutional amendment required two-thirds majorities in each house, plus the concurrence of three-quarters of the state legislatures. Prohibition advocates (and opponents, too) believed that a Constitutional amendment would last forever. In the words of the Prohibition amendment’s primary sponsor, Sen. Morris Sheppard, “There is as much chance of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment as there is for a hummingbird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail.”

Sheppard said that in 1930. It’s a measure of how badly Prohibition had failed that the Twenty-First Amendment – the repeal amendment – was ratified just three years later.

Q.

I’ve heard that Prohibition actually increased American drinking. Do you have any statistics on average alcohol consumption before, during and after Prohibition? – Luke

A.

You’ve heard wrong, Luke: one of the very few positive consequences of Prohibition was the reduction in drinking. There was a very steep reduction immediately after it went into effect, but even the ensuing years of speakeasies, bathtub gin, cross-border smuggling, and every other manner of law-breaking did not bring drinking back to pre-Prohibition levels. At the end of Prohibition, Americans were consuming approximately 70 percent as much alcohol as they had in 1914. (Demographic historians use that as a base year, as many states began to pass sharply restrictive liquor laws around that time.)

In fact, it wasn’t until 1973 that we returned to pre-Prohibition levels of alcohol consumption, and only a few years later the per capita consumption figure began to decline again. Even now, we’re only inching our way back to the 1914 high-water mark. (Or maybe I should call it the “high-alcohol mark”!)

One figure we’ll never reach again: the 7.5 gallons of absolute alcohol the average American drank in 1830 – the equivalent of 90 fifths of 80-proof liquor, or nearly three times as much as we consume today.

Q.

Here in California we have a proposition on the fall ballot to legalize marijuana. A lot of people are hoping that if marijuana is legalized, the gangs that currently profit from it will become less powerful. Is that a reasonable expectation based on what you know about what happened when Prohibition was repealed? – PaulD

Whenever I hear “legalize everything” arguments about today’s prohibited drugs, I always start wondering what the traffickers would do next. After all, criminals generally don’t have pension plans and can’t afford to retire early. Can the Prohibition era teach us anything here? As you mention, it helped get organized crime established in the U.S., but after it was repealed, how many of the smaller crooks decided to go straight? How many moved on to other criminal endeavors? – Ian Kemmish

A.

Today, there is no more visible consequence of Prohibition than the empires built by the mobsters who dominated the bootlegging business. No wonder — not only did they sell their goods at handsome prices, but none of their income was subject to income tax (at least not until Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in 1931). Money like that must find an outlet.

Some went straight: the Bronfmans, who controlled Seagram’s, used the production facilities, distribution relationships and brand recognition they had built during Prohibition to become one of North America’s wealthiest families, dominating the distilling industry. Others stayed crooked: the national crime syndicate that reigned for decades after repeal was the product of inter-city peace pacts and cooperation agreements forged at two conferences – one in Atlantic City, the other in Chicago – during Prohibition.

And some took a middle path. In the years after Prohibition, culminating in a major effort after World War II, one-time bootleggers from eight different states east of the Mississippi decided to look west in an effort to find a way not just to preserve their fortunes, but also to enhance them. Their solution: they invented Las Vegas.

Q.

What do you think of the theory that prohibition was engineered by Standard Oil in order to get Henry Ford to abandon ethanol as the chief fuel of his Model-T? – L. F. File

A.

Not to be too harsh about it, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. In fact, if there was a single industrialist more committed to Prohibition than John D. Rockefeller, it was Henry Ford himself, who supported it vocally, determinedly and unflinchingly right to the end.

Q.

How much of our “aghastness” at Prohibition is based on fact? To hear most people talk, not a single good thing came of it. Yet I have heard anecdotal evidence that things such as domestic violence and other, often alcohol-related, issues fell off significantly.
Very simply, what is the good news from Prohibition? Was there really any good that came of it, or was it all a misshapen mess to from beginning to end? – AaronS

A.

In addition to the reduction in drinking (see my answer to Luke’s question, above), there were a few other ancillary benefits, depending on your point of view. If you’re a believer in federal law enforcement, you can trace many of our post-repeal national criminal laws back to examples established during Prohibition. If you think Roe v. Wade was a wise decision, you can be grateful for Justice Brandeis‘s dissent in a famous Prohibition case, Olmstead v. United States, where he wrote about the citizen’s “right to be let alone” – words cited by Justice Stewart in Roe.

My own favorite legacy of Prohibition is co-ed drinking. In the pre-Prohibition era, the saloon was a male-only institution. Speakeasies ushered in a change in social mores that had men and women drinking together in public for the first time, which in turn brought about music in bars – the birth of the nightclub.

In the largest sense, though, I’d say that Prohibition’s most positive legacy is how it tells us that prohibitions on individual behavior generally don’t work.

Q.

“Progressive” is a concept that’s been attacked by some, notably Mr. Glenn Beck. Do you consider Prohibition to have been a Progressive initiative? – Bill Harshaw

A.

It wasn’t initiated by progressives, but Prohibition was certainly supported by them, in large numbers; 16 of the Progressive Party’s 17 members of Congress who voted on the Eighteenth Amendment voted in favor of it. The progressive view of the responsibility of government to improve the lives of citizens motivated the support for Prohibition expressed by such figures as social worker Jane Addams and journalist William Allen White. Modern conservatives would call this an expression of the nanny state; liberals would call it an expression of social conscience (even if a misguided one).

Q.

It has been said that Prohibition in the U.S. would not have come about but for the efforts of the women’s movement, but how critical were women to the repeal of prohibition? – Seano

A.

Absolutely essential. When the prominent socialite and Republican Party figure Pauline Morton Sabin came out against Prohibition in 1929, the repeal movement began to pick up support. Traveling to various cities with other socially prominent, wealthy women with whom she had formed the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, Sabin drew huge female crowds. Her example established that it was respectable for women to oppose Prohibition.

Sabin was an extraordinary woman and probably my favorite character among all the people I write about in Last Call. She was honest, forthright, fearless and willing to change her mind – qualities all too absent in our public life today.

Anne G. Jones

August 4, 2010 @ 4:50pm

I'm curious: in the response to the question from Luke, you refer to the "average American" in 1830. If that means "voting citizen," it would exclude women and slaves, among others. Could that make the difference in the data for per capita alcohol consumption, then and in 1914 as well?

Robin

August 4, 2010 @ 4:54pm

If prohibition is the "nanny state", why do so many conservatives support it today? Makes one wonder doesn't it?

Eric M. Jones

August 4, 2010 @ 5:31pm

I emailed Daniel Okrent regarding a source of information on Probition which might have been missed--The volumes of "Mixer and Server" that I discovered accidentally while searching for the source of a phrase.

Volume 27 seems to be right about the time of maximum discussion of the subject, and there are an enormous number of fascinating texts--

1) A recipe for making Budweiser at home in 25 hours.
2) A posting of how anti-foreign, anti-immigrant sentiment affected the prohibition issue.
3) Lots of WWI discussions.
4) Civil War discussions. The Civil War was closer to them than the war in Vietnam is to us now. Did Gen. Sherman really fill soldiers canteens with whisky???
5) Discussion of how the churches were involved.
6) A 140 year old man who was born in 1755...

All amazing except for some standard routine stuff, which is easty to skip. God Bless Google.

Read more...

chuck

August 4, 2010 @ 5:37pm

The abuse of alcohol has caused more death, violence, abuse, and sadness in this world than all the wars in the history of mankind. Nearly 80,000 American deaths each year are caused by alcohol. For perspective, 4,287 died in the Iraq War, 58,000 in Vietnam.

Repealing prohibition got rid of the mobsters and produced revenue for the feds, but certainly the problems that led the nation to ban the substance in the first place did not vanish with the passing of the 21st Amendment. If using dangerous substances was only an "individual behavior" the answers would be easy. Our "individual rights" - whether to possess a firearm or use ingest harmful substances - often have consequences that cause harm, misery and sadness to a lot of people. That is why the answers are difficult.

chae s. sone

August 4, 2010 @ 6:37pm

I strongly oppose the pot legalization driven by the power hungry politicians and pot dealers. It is questionable if Taliban would not finance the pot movement, expecting the fall of America in the pot.

Wake up America! Our enemies are coming to destroy this good America from many directions.

Rethink how the British opium war destroyed the great china and she is just started waking up from the humiliating misery.

Dope politicians should re-assess the power of dope..
Chae S. Sone

Henry Hughes

August 4, 2010 @ 6:50pm

Thanks for this. I encourage everyone to actually read the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act" that will be on the California ballot this November. Informed California voters, along with the rest of us, should know that the initiative is anything but a true legalization of cannabis. Rather, it is a cynical power grab by large medical growers, especially initiative author Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University.

The initiative builds upon decades of cynical grandstanding by politicians and others. It strictly limits individual possession and cultivation while creating a concentrated corporate cannabis industry. It also imposes extremely harsh prison sentences for even passing a joint to a minor.

The initiative will NOT be a revenue panacea for the state of California; nor will it reduce the costs associated with enforcement of cannabis prohibition. On the contrary, it is an initiative that only a lawyer could love.

How sad.

Read more...

Jeff #3

August 4, 2010 @ 7:13pm

#4 Chuck, while I understand your viewpoint, the statment

"The abuse of alcohol has caused more death, violence, abuse, and sadness in this world than all the wars in the history of mankind. "

Contains quite a bit of hyperbole. Since we don't have statistics for wars throughout the history of mankind that's not really a statement you can back up in any fashion. A quick search through Google turned up around 600k deaths during the American Civil war, and I'm going to assume that without automobile accidents the alcohol abuse death toll would be quite a bit lower then.

The issue is the same with sadness.... how do you measure that other then appealing to emotion and gut feelings? Except for staunch anti-alcohol groups like MADD, are there people who get more depressed over the fact that someone somewhere is drinking then a soldier dying? Where are anti-alcohol songs and protests from the 60s and 70s?

Read more...

Henry Hughes

August 4, 2010 @ 7:49pm

At the end of my previous comment, I left out a critical clarification. Here's how it should have read:

On the contrary, it is an initiative that only a lawyer could love. And all the better if said lawyer were also a large grower looking to cash in on cannabis "legalization."

Conservative Christian

August 4, 2010 @ 8:36pm

Henry, the "extremely harsh prison sentences for even passing a joint to a minor" are in place already; Proposition doesn't make those penalties any more harsh than they already are. What Prop 19 DOES do is eliminate the penalty for a lot of people's personal use and cultivation. It's the cultivation that will make Prop 19 really effective.

Proposition 19 will allow ordinary American citizens to grow a little marijuana in their own backyards. It will carve the guts out of the drug gangs, get the drug cartels out of our communities, put an end to most of the border violence, and reduce illegal immigration.

As the discussion goes forward, I've asked myself, "If my child or grandchild got a little off track and got caught with a little marijuana, would I want him or her to go to jail, lose their college financial aid, spend a few days locked up with the sexual predators...?" Or would I rather have the chance to help them work through it WITHOUT a criminal record?

Californians: register to vote at
h t t p s://w w w .sos.ca.gov/nvrc/fedform/ Just fill out the form and mail it in!

Read more...

Jennifer Fraker

August 4, 2010 @ 8:44pm

Mr. Chae S. Sone: As someone who is all for marijuana "decriminilation" and. in turn, legalization, I just had to respond to your comment. To compare cannabis to opium is ridiculous. Cannabis has not been responsible for any deaths, is not a factor in domestic violence, and generally just makes people happy. It is not an addictive drug and to imply that the Taliban has something to do with the pot trade is even more ridiculous. Do some research, then lets comment!

Mark

August 4, 2010 @ 9:50pm

Anne G. Jones, comment #1,

In the early nineteenth century, transportation was a major problem for farmers: lots of grain was being grown, but it was very expensive to transport any distance. It was much cheaper to ship distilled corn in kegs and bottles, and for a time, America was awash in booze. Interestingly, people developed such a high tolerance to hard liquor that although men and women drank all the time, public drunkeness was relatively rare.

Henry Hughes

August 4, 2010 @ 10:10pm

'Conservative Christian' writes that the California initiative "will carve the guts out of the drug gangs, get the drug cartels out of our communities, put an end to most of the border violence, and reduce illegal immigration." Wow, maybe it'll eliminate unwanted facial hair, too! Do you actually believe what you've written?

Your disingenuous argument is transparent and silly. Actual legalization of cannabis would eliminate criminal penalties for your child and grandchild, along with those imposed on adults for providing cannabis to minors.

Once again, I encourage people to read the initiative and consider the force of that type of law in the state of California. While we're at it, here's a link to a good short argument against Prop 19 by Dennis Peron, the author of California's original medical cannabis initiative:
http://www.palmspringsbum.org/bin/peron-dennis_oppose-tax-regulate.pdf

And here's a link to a decent longer analysis:
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

Read more...

yoba

August 4, 2010 @ 10:15pm

What about China's experience with Opium. Anyone who knows about drugs hard drugs knows that the addictive properties are much stronger then Alcohol and will bring this country to its knees.

A country with so many social safety programs which already cost us billions cannot have a tsunami of new addicts with access to legalized drugs.

Dan Adams

August 4, 2010 @ 10:26pm

To Chae #5, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Nobody is more against the legalization of marijuana than criminal drug syndicates. If marijuana is licensed, tax, and sold at the local grocery store, the criminal side of the business is kaputt.

Your comparison of marijuana to opium indicates to me that you have no knowledge of the subject. You should try marijuana sometime if you have aches and pains. It isn't physically addictive, the lethal dose cannot be reached through normal means, and it is highly effective at dulling pain. Compare that to a drug where addiction is so severe that unmonitored withdrawal has the potential to kill the patient.

I use marijuana on occasion but I'm not a pothead. I smoked Saturday, and before that I think it must have been about 6 weeks that I smoked last. I read a book afterward and went to bed. Please enlighten me as to how that's more dangerous than either alcohol or nicotine.

Read more...

Andy B.

August 4, 2010 @ 10:33pm

I've almost given up the idea that people will understand this simple reason that drugs need to be kept illegal.

There are many ghetto neighborhoods where violent criminals would enjoy almost total immunity from punishment ( neighborhood people either doesn't like to co-operate with law enforcement or is too scared to testify against thuggish bully ) if it weren't for the fact that they also sell and use illegal drugs.

This enables cops to bust for possession and/or sale - and thus police witnesses suffice to get a conviction.

Somebody Somewhere

August 4, 2010 @ 10:58pm

Thank you for a very interesting discussion. I've been grappling with this issue in my mind for a while, and while I doubt there's a clear cut, right or wrong solution to the failing war on drugs, there is some very useful food for thought, here.

http://stark-raving-sober.blogspot.com/

Anthony Levintow

August 4, 2010 @ 11:00pm

As I look at the carnage on the U.S.-Mexico border (and the carnage both within America and Mexico) I wish I could tell President Felipe Calderon, "Just legalize everything." It would suck the money from the cartels and gangs and redirect it (through taxation) to the government, which could actually start helping improve the daily lives of its citizens, instead of continuing the collateral damage of an incredibly expensive (and failing) war on drugs.

handle it better

August 4, 2010 @ 11:16pm

Just an idea on the per capita alcohol consumption in 1830: could it be in part because the population of the US was relatively more English & Irish & Scottish at time, races with the - perhaps - deserved reputation for drinking to excess, than later, after floods of Germanic and Mediterranean peoples came to America???